Karnataka High Court
Pradeep vs Krishnaveni on 4 July, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 522 OF 2009 (RT-)
BETWEEN:
1. PRADEEP S/O. JINADATTA YALAGI,
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RESIDING AT
DURGAD BAIL CIRCLE, HUBLI-580029
2. BAHUBALI S/O JINADATTA YALAGI,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT DURGAD BAIL,
OLD HUBLI - 580029.
3. GEETA W/O JINADATTA YALAGI,
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDING AT DURGAD BAIL,
OLD HUBLI -580029
4. PAVITRA D/O JINADATTA YALAGI,
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDING AT DURGAD BAIL,
OLD HUBLI - 580029
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G R ANDANIMATH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KRISHNAVENI W/O HAARIDAS BAYARI,
AGE 83 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDENT OF HORAKERI ONI,
DURGAD BAIL CIRCLE, OLD HUBLI,
-2-
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT. YASHODA D/O. HARIDAS
BAYARI, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. HORAKERI ONI, DURGAD BAIL,
OLD HUBLI.
1A YASHODA D/O. HARIDAS BAYARI,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT HORAKERI ONI, DURGAD BAIL CIRCLE,
OLD HUBLI, HUBLI - 580024
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H R GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A);
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF Code of Civil
Procedure AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.06.2009
IN RENT REVISION NO.13/2007 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI,
ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 11.01.2007 IN RCA NO.3/2006 PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND III JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 5 AND SECTION
31(1)(a) & (c) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.
IN THIS APPEAL ARGUMENTS HAVING BEEN HEARD, ORDER
RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by respondents 2 to 5,
challenging the Judgment and Decree in Rent Revision
No.13/2007 on the file of the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, (hereinafter
referred to as First Revisional Court) setting aside the
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
order dated 11.01.2007 passed in RCA No.3/2006 on the
file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and III JMFC
Court, Hubballi, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Court')
dismissing the petition.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties to this
revision petition are referred to as per their ranking before
the Rent Court.
3. Petitioner-landlady averred that, the
commercial premises measuring 12 ft X 12 ft situate at
Durgadbail Circle, Old-Hubballi, described as petition
premises, has been let out to the husband of the
respondent No.1 and father of the respondent No.2 to 5. It
is further averred that, husband of the petitioner-
K.Haridas is the absolute owner of the petition-schedule
premises and he died leaving behind the landlady and her
children and thereafter, the petitioner succeeded to the
petition schedule premises. Petitioner has filed HRC
No.131/1996 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.
Dn.) Hubballi, under Section 21 (1) (a) (l) and (J) of the
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Act') and during the pendency of the said petition,
the husband of the respondent No.1- Jinadatta D. Yalagi
died and pursuant to the same, the respondents were
brought on record. The said petition came to be dismissed
on 04.03.2003 and no further revision was filed against
the said order. After the death of the husband of the
respondent No.1, respondent-tenants continued in the
schedule premises for a period of five years, despite
request having been made by the petitioner-landlady to
vacate the premises and as such, it is the case of the
petitioner that, on expiry of five years, respondent-tenants
have no authority to continue in the premises as tenants
and resultantly, the petitioner has filed petition under
Section 5 and under Section 31 (1)(a) and (c) of the Act.
It is further stated that, the petitioner is aged about 80
years and she is a widow and as such, she is entitled for
immediate possession of the schedule premises. The
petitioner has caused notice to the respondent-tenant for
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
vacating the premises, however, landlady-petitioner has
not received any reply from the respondent-tenants and
accordingly landlady-petitioner filed petition in RCA
No.3/2006. On service of notice, the respondents entered
appearance, however, respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed
detailed objection, admitting the relationship of landlord
and tenant, and took up a contention that in view of the
dismissal of the earlier petition in HRC No.131/1996, and
same having reached finality, the petitioner-landlady
cannot maintain second petition on the very same ground
and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition. Based on
the pleadings on record, the Rent Court formulated the
points for consideration. In order to prove their case, the
petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and produced 07
documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On
the other hand, respondents have examined 01 witness as
R.W.1 and produced 01 document as Ex.R.1. The Rent
Court, after considering the material on record, by its
order dated 11.01.2007, dismissed the petition. Being
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-landlady has filed
Rent Revision No.13/2007 on the file of the First Revisional
Court and same was resisted by the respondents-tenants.
The First Revisional Court, after considering the material
on record, by its order dated 06.06.2009 allowed the
petition under Section 31(1)(a) and (c) of the Act,
however, set aside the Revision on other grounds raised
by the petitioner and as such, directed the respondent
Nos.1 to 5 to vacate the petition premises within six
months. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-
tenants have preferred this revision petition.
4. Sri. Sunil Desai, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that, the petition filed by the
petitioners is not maintainable under Sections 5 and 31(1)
(a) and (c) of the Act. He further contended that, Section
31(1)(a) and (c) of the Act would be applicable for certain
conditions and in the event of the death of the original
landlady, eviction petition does not survive for
consideration. He further contended that, in view of the
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
death of the Landlady consideration of Section 31 of the
Act does not arise. Hence, he submits that, the finding
recorded by both the Courts below under Section 31(1)(a)
and (c) of the Act is contrary to the object of the Act and
the explanation to Section 31 of the Act.
5. Per contra, Sri. H.R.Gundapa, learned counsel
for the respondent/legal representatives of the landlady
argued that, the Courts below are justified in passing
eviction order against the petitioners herein, as the
premises was let out to the father of the petitioner No.1
herein and further he submitted that, as the premises is
required for the legal heirs of the landlady for bonafide
purpose, he sought to justify the impugned Judgment and
Decree passed by the Courts below. He also submits that,
there is arrears of rent to be paid by the petitioners.
6. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is relevant to
deduce Section 5 of the Act:
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
5. Inheritability of tenancy.-(1) In the event of death of a
tenant, the right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of five years from the
date of his death to his successors in the following order, namely.
(a) spouse:
(b) son or daughter or where there are both son and daughter
both of them;
(c) parents;
(d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his predeceased son:
Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living or
carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant as a
member of his family up to the date of his death and was dependent
on the deceased tenant:
Provided further that a right to tenancy shall not devolve
upon a successor in case such successor or his spouse or any of his
dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the
local area in relation to the premises let.
(2) If a person, being a successor mentioned in sub-section
(1), was ordinarily living in or carrying on business in the premises
with the deceased tenant but was not dependent on him on the date
of his death, or he or his spouse or any of his dependent son or
daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in
relation to the premises let to which this Act applies such successor
shall acquire a right to continue in possession as a tenant for a
limited period of one year from the date of death of the tenant; and,
on the expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the
right of such successor to continue in possession of the premises
shall become extinguished.
Section 31 of the Act reads as under:
31. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to
accrue to a widow -
(1) Where the landlord is-
(a) a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband;
(b) a handicapped person and the premises let out by him;
(c) a person who is of the age of sixty-five years or more an the
premises let out by him,
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
Is required for use by her or him or for her or his family or for
anyone for ordinarily living with her or him for use, she or he may
apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such
premises.
(2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) has let out
more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an
application under that sub-section in respect of any one residential
and one non-residential premises each chosen by him.
7. Originally, the landlady has filed petition under
Section 21 (1)(a),(l) and (j) of the Act in HRC
No.131/1986. The original tenant has not disputed the
relationship with the landlady. After the demise of the
original tenant, the petitioners herein are the legal
representatives of original tenant-Jinadatta B. Yalagi.
Though HRC No.131/1986 came to be dismissed on
04.03.2003, however, there is no impediment for the
landlady to file proceedings under Sections 5 & 31 of the
amended Act. At the time of filing of the petition in RCA
No.3/2006, the age of the petitioner was 80 years. On
perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court, the trial
Court on the ground that the petitioner has not chosen to
plead the requirement of the premises for her benefit,
- 10 -
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
dismissed the petition. In this regard, I have carefully
considered the explanation 2 to Section 31 of the Act. The
said Explanation provides for filing petition one at a time.
However, Section 31 of the Act deals with accruing of right
to recover immediate possession of premises to a widow.
The perusal of Section 31 of the Act provides for
preference to three categories of citizens, viz., widow,
handicapped person and Senior Citizen of above 65 years.
Taking into consideration, even if the original petitioner
died, the cause of action for the case arises during her life
time and therefore, the finding recorded by the First
Appellate Court in R.R.No.13/2007 is just and proper. In
respect of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner on Section 5 of the Act, the object of the
Act is to balance the interest of both landlord and tenant
and also stimulates future construction. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Special Reference No.1 of
(2002) 8 SCC 237, it was held that it is permissible to look
into pre-existing law and also historical legislative
- 11 -
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
developments while considering the applicability of the
Act. In the case on hand, the relationship between the
parties as landlord and tenant is not disputed. Perusal of
the record would indicate that, the petitioners herein are
the legal heirs of Sri. Jinadatta Y. Yalagi, who died on
04.08.1997. Original petition in RCA No.3/2006 was filed
by the landlady seeking eviction and the matter was
concluded on 11.01.2007 wherein, the trial Court
dismissed the petition on the ground that the landlady has
not made out a case for seeking relief under Section 31 of
the Act. However, on careful consideration of the reasons
assigned by the First Revisional Court, and after referring
to the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of
K.Puttaraju Vs. A. Hanumegouda, reported in (2008)
SCC 667, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
order of the First Revisional Court. In the said case at
paragraph 12 and 13 of the Judgment it is held thus:
"12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and taking note of the submissions made by the learned
counsel, we are of the view that in view of the provisions
under Section 31 of the Act, the order of the High Court as
well as the Small Cause Court, Bangalore cannot be interfered
- 12 -
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
with for two simple reasons. One, we are unable to agree with
Ms Suri that the provisions under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act
and the provisions under Section 31 of the Act are not
independent of each other, and the other, on a reading of the
aforesaid two provisions, there cannot be any doubt in our
mind that Section 31 of the Act gives a special right to some
particular classes of landlords. Therefore, in our view, Section
31 of the Act, which imposes certain conditions on the landlord
to get the order of eviction of his tenant, is satisfied and the
landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction without going to
the provisions of Section 27(2)(r) of the Act.
13. On a plain reading of Section 27(2)(r) of the Act
and the scheme thereunder, we are of the view that the said
provision has given right to a landlord to evict his tenant inter
alia on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement if
he avers and proves that he reasonably requires the said
shop for his own use and occupation and for the members of
his family as he is not in possession of reasonable, suitable
accommodation elsewhere. Therefore, a reading of this
provision would clearly indicate that this is a general provision
for eviction of a tenant given to the landlord to evict his
tenant. Whereas Section 31 of the Act has been introduced by
the legislature to reflect the policy of the legislature for
rendering speedy justice to the f landlords belonging to three
categories of citizens, namely, a widow, a handicapped
person and a person who is a citizen of above 65 years. For
these three categories of persons, the legislature has
introduced this provision for the purpose of giving immediate
possession of the said premises to the landlord. Therefore, in
our view, the aforesaid two provisions are quite independent
of each other and they can be set in motion in the individual
fields."
8. The Apex Court has held that, as on the date of
filing of the petition under Section 31, the landlord was a
Senior Citizen and if the case has been considered at the
relevant point of time, the Rent Court ought to have
decreed the petition in favour of the petitioner-landlady. In
this regard, though the learned counsel appearing for the
- 13 -
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshamma and
others Vs. B.P.Thirumala Setty and others, reported in
ILR 2005 Kar. 5599, but taking into consideration the fact
that, the petitioners/tenant have not sought for leave in
terms of Section 42 of the Act, the Judgment referred to
by the petitioner cannot be applicable to the facts on
hand. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to
confirm the order dated 06.06.2009 in Rent Revision
No.13/2007.
9. It is to be noted that this Court is having limited
jurisdiction to interfere with the revisional orders in terms
of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, reported
in (2008) 9 SCC 475. In the said Judgment, it is held
that, the revisional jurisdiction is limited and revisional
Court should not interfere unless there is a jurisdictional
error or an error of law is noticed. After analyzing the
- 14 -
HRRP No. 522 of 2009
finding recorded by both the Courts below, I am of the
view that, the oral and documentary evidence produced by
the parties has been considered and evaluated on merits
by the Courts below and in that view of the matter, I do
not find any acceptable ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment and decree dated 06.06.2009 passed
by the Revisional Court in Rent Revision No.13/2007.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition dismissed.
(ii) The order dated 06.06.2009 passed
in Rent Revision No.13/2007 by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at
Hubballi, is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
